Allahabad High Court
Shikha Gautam vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 24 February, 2023
Bench: Vikas Budhwar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 32
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3481 of 2023
Petitioner :- Shikha Gautam
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Man Bahadur Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Yadav,Ram Bilas Yadav
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
Heard Sri Man Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel who appears for Respondent No. 1, Sri Ashok Kumar Yadav who appears for respondent Nos. 2 and 4 and Sri Ram Bilas Yadav for respondent No. 3.
The case of the writ petitioner is that he after passing the High School and Intermediate examination and obtaining B.Sc degree from Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar University, Agra and completing BTC course and U.P. TET, was accorded appointment on 30.08.2016 as an Assistant Teacher in Mathura and thereafter he was transferred on 02.02.2021 and thereafter transferred/joined as an Assistant Teacher in Agra on 02.02.2021. In para 6 and 7 of the writ petition it has been averred that the writ petitioner has not been paid salary from 31th August, 2016 to 31st December, 2016, however, he is getting regular salary from January, 2017. According to the writ petitioner as per the averments contained in paragraph No. 6 of the writ petition verification of his testimonials were conducted and they were found to be genuine. In para 9 of the writ petition, the writ petitioner has made a statement on oath that with regard to non-payment of salary from 31st August, 2016 to 31st January, 2016, he has represented the matter before the fourth respondent on 08.04.2022, 30.04.2022 along with an affidavit. It is a case of the writ petitioner that the representations have not been decided till date.
Grievance of the writ petitioner is for issuance of a mandamus commanding the fourth respondent, District Basic Education Officer, Mathura to take a conscious decision over the same.
Learned Standing Counsel as well as the counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have, on the other hand, argued that the issue with regard to non-payment of salary coupled with the fact that the petitioner is claiming to have been paid the regular salary from January, 2017 partakes the character of arrears of salary and thus after enormous delay in the year 2023 the writ petitioner is approaching this Court on the strength of the representations which are stated to be pending since, 2022 thus, the question of limitation and delay will come into play with regard to the payment of salary. According to them since the matter is to be redressed at the first instance by the fourth respondent thus, they do not propose to file any affidavit.
In rejoinder affidavit to the same, learned counsel for the petitioner has cited the judgment in the case of M.R. Gupta Vs. Union of India AIR 1996 page 669 so as to contend that non-payment of salary is a continuous cause of action which accrues on month to month basis thus, the question of delay will not arise.
Considering the submission of the rival parties as well as the stands taken by them, the writ petition is disposed of with granting liberty to the writ petitioner to prefer a comprehensive representation before the fourth respondent accompanying with the earlier request letter which has been mentioned in para 9 of the writ petition dated 08.04.2022 and 03.04.2022. On the receipt of the said representation, the fourth respondent, District Basic Education Officer, Mathura, shall proceed to decide the same strictly in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of production of the certified copy of the order of course subject to any legal impediment.
Subject to the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Needless to point out that this Court has not adjudicated the matter on merits.
Order Date :- 24.2.2023
Rajesh
